Related Stories

Comments (48)

Our head of state will be neutral, unless you’re implying that Charles intends to fly down here and start lobbying the Government of the day. If that happens it should solve the argument that we need a ‘local’ head of state.

backster

When QEII dies the cry’s for a republic will go up far and wide.
The conservatives among us will be the loudest voices when they realize what having big ears of head of state will mean.
He would be almost as bad as having Helen for president.

Biscuit

Griff, for Helen to be President a few things need to happen:

1. Country ditches Monarch

2. Country decides what role or (if any) powers the President would have

3. Country decides how its Head of State will be determined:
* Politically? By the Parliament, I mean? So, effectively, the President would be the ruling party’s tame appointee.
* By a vote? Which makes it all political again
* By acclamation? Someone of national stature … Willie A, Sir Colin, David Bain (KIDDING!), e.g. The ‘pool’ is not large…

Helen will not be considered DG there is far to many who would object.
Personally I can not see why we would not retain something similar to the governor general without the attachment to a German dynasty. Appointed by Parliament or elected by voters I dont care as long as they are held to only the duty’s and powers presently apportioned to the CG.
The present governor general is not usually seen as a political appointment.
A clause that no person who has held an elected office can be considered could be inserted to stop overtly political appointments .

I do believe transiting to a republic is a conversation that we need to have as QEII ages and our connection to England fades.

OneTrack

Random Punter

He’s not the Sovereign yet. He’s the Prince of Wales. He’s entitled to his views, and there’s no constitutional impropriety in his making them known privately to the government.

Personally, I think it’s admirable that he takes a strong interest in such issues. Neither of his predecessors as Prince of Wales showed any interest in serious matters, preferring to spend their time in drinking, gambling, and other forms of self-indulgence. So could he, if he wanted to – he has no constitutional duties or obligations. Instead, he does an enormous amount of good through his foundations such as The Prince’s Trust. When the time comes, he’ll be an excellent king.

Sequel

So we have a future Head of State that actually asks questions? Good. He didn’t say ‘you must do this or that’ or give an order, he asked questions. What do you think HM the Queen says in her meetings with the PM? I’m sure she asks questions and gives her views. The PM is then free to discount some or all of what she says. I think a King who asks questions about food supply, service men and women etc is a good thing.

Scott

Well our future head of state lobbying ministers is not necessarily a bad thing. But if you want a neutral head of state then we should sack the Monarchy, install a New Zealand president of Aotearoa. No doubt Labour will attain the levers of power at some stage and no doubt they will work tirelessly to install Helen Clarke as president. Helen Clarke, President for life of the people’s Republic of Aotearoa! How much more neutral can you get!

JamesP

It’s easy to be critical of the status quo when the alternative is just a nebulous concept. How will you pick the president in your republic, election, selection? Either way there is no chance of them being politically neutral or not holding opinions on various matters of import. Granted, Prince Charles is a leftist moonbat. But on the plus side he is far away, not yet the king, and will probably shut-up as demanded by convention upon his coronation.

mikenmild

We could quite easily have a politically neutral head of state selected in the same way as we now choose the Governor-General. Yes, Prince Charles is far away and most unlikely to ever influence and New Zealand affairs. It’s really for the Brits to decide how to react to his meddling.

JamesP

Ok so you are advocating a selected president. Great, it’s what I would pick if we had to become a republic. Much safer than an elected president with his own political power base.

However, the current arrangement works well because it has a safeguard that the actual head of the state (the Queen) has a veto over our defacto head of state (the GG). That means the PM has to choose someone sensible. Remove that safeguard and the PM can rubber stamp whomever he likes for political advantage.

Also I would ask if any of our recent GGs were politically neutral by DPFs standards. Surely Sir Jerry had views on NZ Army purchasing decisions? Anand Satyanand even helped some people run for parliament!

mikenmild

Politically neutral doesn’t have to mean having no personal opinion. We have had very few instances of New Zealand Governors-General coming into any sort of conflict with the government of the day. In my view, the theoretical ability of the sovereign to choose, veto or dismiss the Governor-General would never be exercised.

Reid

Well duh, this is just another brick in the wall as prep for skipping over Charles and going straight for Wills once QEII dies/steps down.

Don’t you guys understand politics?

How do you think the Guardian got the letters in the first place? Who leaked them?

And why is anyone surprised this lobbying happens? Those letters are nothing. They haven’t told you a thing about how it really works. The PM is the Queen’s First Minister. Do you really think that is simply lip service?

Reid

altiora

Yawn. Not the stuff to bring down the monarchy, must be such a shame for the Guardian.

The convention of political neutrality attaches to the Queen only; and it is just that, a convention not a rule of law.

I think the convention is more that the monarchy should not be seen to favour one party or the other; not that it shouldn’t have an opinion; and that it shouldn’t be seen to publicly disagree with the Government. That being the case, Charles hasn’t breached the convention.

We know the Queen has several times swayed her Prime Ministers; Margaret Thatcher over sanctions on South Africa, being the obvious example.

mikenmild

I think there are a couple of problems here, altiora. One, why would anyone expect his meddling to change once he ascends the throne. Second, it’s fine to have an opinion and the monarch has a proper role in being consulted over public matters. But it is a different matter to have Charles badgering (sorry) ministers over his pet concerns.

mikenmild

altiora

mikenmild: where did this “badgering” standard derive from? Ten letters is all we have on a variety of topics. How is that “badgering”. Did you find any evidence that the PM felt pressured by Charles to do things against his will? No.

Charles has done what is open to all citizens in the UK. Again, like Farrar, you’re deliberately re-conceptualising the convention to suit your argument, and then go “gotcha, bad bad Charles”. When and if Charles becomes King, he will have audiences with his PMs and can express any views he wants. Just as the Queen currently does. At the end of the day, he has no real political power; that lies with the PM.

V

Fairly natural he would write some letters to Ministers on issues.
As part of his work with the Princes trust he would speak with a huge number and variety of people across society.
Only natural he would raise some things with politicians of the day, up to them what they do with his thoughts/ideas.

I wonder how neutral our ‘so-called’ future head of state Helen Clark would be?

Johnboy

altiora

@ Reid: you should read the news more often, there was a court case in which the English courts held that the letters had to be released under the UK’s equivalent of the Official Information Act. Sometimes there’s no conspiracy. As you are wont to end verfy posting “You should educate yourself”.